On Tuesday 08 April 2003 06:01, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > > 5. the following implementation note is added to concepts:
> > > any other equivalent form. As an example:
> > > literals with datatype <tt>rdf:XMLLiteral</tt>s can be represented
> > > in a non-canonical
> > > format, and canonicalization performed during the comparison between
> > > two such literals
> > The second fragment after the "and" confuses me.
> I will give an example here and then hope that we can discuss the text.
My original problem is the text: the ungrammatical second fragment. If one
is saying that c14n is optional, I can understand that, I just completely
fail to understand the fragment. Now, let's presume that your example would
clarify the intent and if I'd then have substantive response. <smile/>
[Later after staring at the text some more...] Oh, is that second fragment a
second example?! In which case, instead of "an example" it should state
"two examples include"?
> The string '<b xmlns="eg:b"></b>' for the value of eg:p1 and the string
> '<b xmlns="eg:b"/>' as the value of eg:p2.
> An application that does this as caused trouble for itself if and when a
> comparison is made between these two.
Agreed.
> Since we know that there are RDF applications, such as RSS, in which
> these comparisons are never made, the application writer can 'optimise'
> such code (for cost) by not writing it.
I can understand this. I don't know if that will introduce problems out in
the "wild", I suppose that is best undestand with respect to conformance.
Is an RSS application/processor defined and this is an optional feature? Or
is there no RSS application/processor, but a data model and syntax and this
is trying to say that the serialized form will always be c14n but internal
representations are out-of-scope and of course can do what they link and if
they never serialize, they'll never have to worry about this bit?